Public Bill Committee

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]
Written evidence to be reported to the House
PF 53 British Irish RIGHTS WATCH
PF 54 Genevieve Lennon
PF 55 Jon Fassbender
PF 56 Public and Commercial Services Union
PF 57 Commander Simon Pountain, ACPO Disclosure of Criminal Convictions Portfolio
PF 58 David Wells

Clause 54

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment 107, in clause54, page37, line23,after ‘apply’, insert ‘in relation to immobilisation achieved by way of a fixed barrier at the exit to a car park’.

Gary Streeter: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 108, in clause54, page37, line27,at end insert—
‘(c) the vehicle is not registered in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.’.
Amendment 90, in clause54,page37,line30,after ‘liable’, insert ‘to prosecution by the police and’.

Diana Johnson: Good morning to you and the Committee, Mr Streeter. This is my first opportunity to welcome you to the Chair for our deliberations on the Bill.
When reading the provisions on wheel-clamping, I noted again what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said earlier in our deliberations: the Bill contains a range of issues. Earlier this week, we considered squatting and various other issues, and we now move to wheel-clamping. During Public Reading, it became clear from comments by members of the public that feeling is mixed about whether the provisions offer protection to various groups. I looked at the coalition agreement, to which I am told we must now always refer, to see what the coalition Government’s policy intentions are. The coalition agreement says:
“We will tackle rogue private sector wheel clampers.”
It does not say that they will ban them, but it says that they will tackle them.
Amendment 107 deals with a problem identified by witnesses during the evidence sessions at the beginning of the Committee stage, when fixed barriers were discussed. The amendment is intended to help the Government. It relates to subsection (3) and would make it clear what the intention of a fixed barrier is, so that the provision does not widen the opportunity for car park owners and private landowners to immobilise vehicles using wheel-clamping as well as barriers.
To put the amendment in context, subsection (1) makes wheel-clamping an offence. Subsection (2) states that it is unlawful to enter into a contractual agreement giving legal authority for the purposes of subsection (1). Essentially, that means that one cannot put up a sign at the entrance to a piece of land implying that anyone who enters in a vehicle is agreeing to the possibility that they will be clamped. Subsection (3) goes on to say that the clause provides an exemption if a fixed barrier is in place.
As I said, the amendment attempts to improve the drafting of the Bill. Currently, I believe, the clause provides an exemption from the wheel-clamping ban for landowners who use a fixed barrier at the entrance to their land. It appears that the subsection was included to deal with multi-storey car parks that operate a barrier system to allow regulation of use of the car parks and ensure that people pay before leaving.
Under the current wording, if a barrier is in place, as in a multi-storey car park, subsection (2) will not apply after a car enters the car park. That means that a contractual agreement between the driver and the owner of the land can lawfully provide legal authority not only for the used of a fixed barrier to prevent the car being able to leave but for wheel-clamping and towing away. I imagine that that is seen as important for large organisations such as Tesco. Tesco’s car parks have huge volumes of traffic passing in and out. They generally have a barrier at the front of the car park, which is usually up. I have never seen the barrier brought down. I believe that under the provision there is the opportunity for Tesco to wheel-clamp, and tow away, a car that enters one of its car parks and stays there for days. It would not want to put the barrier down because that would prevent lawful customers from entering and leaving the car park. I can understand, therefore, that the Bill is drafted as it is to allow for such instances, but there is clearly a lot of confusion about what the subsection will mean.
Patrick Troy, the chief executive of the British Parking Association, who is an expert on parking regulation, said in his evidence that he believes that the subsection
“creates a big loophole because it allows any rogue operator to buy a piece of land, and as long as they put a gate on that land and a sign that says, ‘I’m going to clamp you if you enter this land’, the vehicle can still be clamped.”––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 144-45, Q418.]
That is what the clause appears to say; I cannot see any other possible interpretation. It creates the danger of allowing rogue operators to continue operating, and all the Act will do is put the legitimate clamping operator out of action, which I am sure is not the Bill’s intention. If someone such as Patrick Troy, an expert who over many years has looked at wheel-clamping and parking regulation, says that that is his interpretation of the Bill, the Government need to consider carefully what their intention is and whether the Bill currently achieves it.
It is also clear from the Public Reading stage of the Bill that that same interpretation is widely held by the public. There were many contributions to the wheel- clamping section, and they show that members of the public are confused about how the clause will deal with wheel-clamping and the Government’s intention to outlaw it.
In its report in response to the Public Reading stage, the Home Office states that it believes it is worrying that the interpretation is such that the public are confused, but that it thinks the intention is clear. In the light of Patrick Troy’s evidence and the range of other evidence put forward by the public, the Home Office must look again at whether the Bill is clear. We do not want to agree laws that the public find confusing; the public are genuinely concerned and confused about parking regulation and wheel-clamping. It would have been sensible, before embarking on the ban, to have sat down and gone through a longer-term approach to parking, trying to marry up private land and public land parking issues, because two clearly different systems operate and I do not think that the public fully understand that. Amendment 107 would limit the scope of the Government’s intention, which is to allow just the use of a fixed barrier to prevent vehicles being moved. At the moment, the Bill allows a wider interpretation, which covers the use of wheel-clamping.
I hope that the Government will see amendment 108 as helpful, as it deals with the problem that private landowners have when a vehicle parked on their land and about which they are concerned is not registered in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. In such cases, the new provision presents the landowner with some difficulty because the ticketing approach, which is set out later in the Bill, is of no help to them if the vehicle is not registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. In those very clear circumstances, where there is not a registration in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, amendment 108 attempts to allow landowners to use wheel-clamping so that they can remove a vehicle from their land.

Tom Brake: I understand perfectly the point that the hon. Lady is making, but is it not also possible that the owners of foreign-registered vehicles may be confused by the notices that are on display? I know that British citizens sometimes have difficulty understanding what the parking notices in car parks are saying about whether they should or should not pay on bank holidays. Equally, foreign visitors may be very confused about notices and therefore they may be put in the really difficult position of trying to secure the release of their vehicle when they are in a foreign country and perhaps using a foreign language that they do not speak well.

Diana Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The disappointing aspect is that we have not had an opportunity to consider all the issues around parking, including people who use vehicles in this country that are registered abroad and who may have concerns generally about understanding our parking regulations and laws. It seems that we are rushing into what appears to be a very popular thing to do, namely getting rid of wheel-clamping. I know that lots of MPs will say that they have had huge numbers of constituents contacting them about the problem of rogue wheel-clampers. However, by rushing ahead in this way, not thinking things through properly and not paying regard to all the issues that arise from banning wheel-clamping, we will set ourselves up with a number of new problems. This issue of unregistered vehicles is one of the problems that we need to address. That is why we have tabled this amendment, to help the Government to consider that this is one of the problems that they have not identified and that they need to do something about.

Nicola Blackwood: Given the hon. Lady’s concerns about a wide range of parking issues, I just wondered whether she thinks that it would be appropriate to recommend to the Committee that we have an inquiry into those issues.

Diana Johnson: One of the things that I recall from the last Parliament is that the Opposition parties always criticised the Government for not having evidence to put forward when we were making new policy decisions. Wheel-clamping is a very contentious issue and one that lots of people have views about. We have rushed into this legislation. We have not sat down with all the key stakeholders and had a proper debate about what we think should happen in this country.

Mark Tami: I think we all accept that wheel-clamping is an issue that something must be done about, but I wonder whether we are rushing headlong into action, as was the case with dangerous dogs when there was a knee-jerk reaction and we found ourselves in a situation where the legislation did not really work. We are in quite a similar situation here.

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point—that is exactly what is happening. The amendment is designed to allow the Government to consider their position on unregistered vehicles.
I was interested to note that on the Minister’s own website she referred to the fact that people were raising the issue of unregistered and unlicensed cars, particularly in London, and that car owners would ignore a ticketing system if their vehicles were unregistered or unlicensed. On her website, the Minister writes that she would say to
“Boris”—
Who I assume is the Mayor of London—
“and the Met police—about time this was properly dealt with rather than go after ever more punitive methods for those who do pay up. It’s always the good guys who act responsibly and pay up—because they are good guys. Let’s go after the bad guys!”
So I want to know from the Minister how she intends to
“go after the bad guys”
while allowing landowners who legitimately need to protect their properties from unlicensed and unregistered cars to do just that. How does she intend to go about that?

Mark Tami: I am sure that other colleagues will say the same, but I have had a number of people come to see me who have received a penalty notice for the London congestion charge. They have never been to the centre of London, but someone is obviously driving around with copies of their plates in order to avoid the charge.

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend has come on to a point that we wish to raise in further amendments later on in relation to wheel-clamping. There is a lack of an appeal mechanism, in the new regime that the Government wish to introduce, to deal with such problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West raised that point in the evidence sessions, when he talked about the fact that his number plate had been cloned and that he had then been pursued to pay a ticket penalty. We will come on to that. The two amendments are designed to help the Government to deal with some of the failures that they have brought on themselves by not looking carefully and fully at the whole issue of wheel-clamping.
Finally, amendment 90 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East and I understand that it has the support of the Citizens Advice Bureau.

Tom Watson: It does.

Diana Johnson: It is a helpful amendment and would allow the Government to make clear that it is the police who have responsibility for pursuing people who get involved in wheel-clamping illegally, under the provisions of the Bill, and to make it clear that it is their responsibility. This is a helpful drafting amendment to spell out clearly to the public, and to anyone involved in parking, exactly what the Government’s intention is. On that basis, I conclude.

Tom Watson: My sincere apologies to you, Mr Streeter, and to Committee members for arriving a little late today. I am fully responsible for that—not very reliable. The Minister will obviously be pleased that I can be here this morning to help her along with seeking clarity on the Bill, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North on the Front Bench for not hearing her wonderful contribution.
This is a simple amendment and, as my hon. Friend said, it is designed to make clear which authority will tackle illegal clamping and towing, and who the public can approach if they are prevented from using a vehicle due to its having been clamped or towed. In my reading of clause 54, we are creating a new offence of immobilising, moving or restricting the movement of a vehicle without lawful authority. In effect, the clause bans most clamping and towing by anyone other than the police, or local authorities and government agencies, acting in accordance with their statutory or other powers. To be guilty of that offence, the person immobilising or moving the vehicle must intend to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by its driver or owner. The penalty for the new offence will be a fine. That will either be limited to an indictment or a fine not more than the statutory minimum. On summary conviction, I think that is £5,000.
I tabled the amendment to clarify the role of the police in enforcing the ban on clamping and towing. As it is currently drafted, the Bill does not make it clear explicitly who is responsible. I tabled the amendment because there are some very good intentions laid out throughout the Bill but the Government seem a little reticent to provide powers to enforce them. We debated biometrics in schools, but there was no sanction for schools that chose to ignore the guidance. The situation with regard to CCTV was rather similar. If we get this wrong on car parking, the scale of the problem will be much greater if the law is not enforced adequately.
I am pleased that there has been a recognition that rogue clampers are now widespread, and it is good that the Government are dealing with the issue. On my iPhone 4, outside the Committee, I googled to find out who in the Government was saying good stuff on this issue. The Minister herself said that the Government were committed to ending the
“menace of rogue private sector wheel-clampers once and for all”.
She went on to say:
“For too long motorists have fallen victim to unscrupulous tactics by many clamping firms. Reports of motorists being marched to cash points or left stranded after their car had been towed are simply unacceptable”.
I hope that we all agree on that. I hope that the intention of my amendment makes it clear that we could give force to the words that the Minister used.
Simply making it an offence to clamp or tow vehicles is unlikely to deter rogue operators unless the ban is rigorously enforced. Drivers need to know whom they can call on if they have been clamped and towed away. This would be a simple measure. The Public Bodies Bill will abolish the Security Industry Authority. I was on the Committee that approved its creation many years ago—that shows how old I am getting. We will have a parking industry that will become largely unregulated again, if we do not get the words in the Bill right.
The British Parking Association provides a framework for self-regulation in the British parking and traffic management sector. In order to become a member of the BPA, companies must comply with all of its code of practice. Car parking companies are not compelled to join the BPA and comply with the code, whereas the clamping ban will apply to all operators. It hardly seems appropriate that the BPA should enforce the clamping ban against operators that are not its members. That is not a solution. I understand that the Government probably envisage that enforcement of the ban will fall within the remit of the police. The amendment would clarify that in the Bill, so that the public can be aware of it.

Mark Tami: Is my hon. Friend as worried as I am that this amendment would put a further onus on the police to be involved in this area, particularly bearing in mind the level of cuts that the police force are experiencing? Would they make this any sort of priority?

Tom Watson: I think there is a very real danger that they will have to prioritise, if the Bill does not specifically state that it is down to the police to enforce the ban, given the large scale of the cuts and the number of redundancies. Some 1,000 police officers are losing their jobs in the West Midlands region alone. It will create misery in the rogue car parking sector if the police do not feel from day one that they will have to rigorously enforce the measures that the Minister has reasonably put forward in the Bill.

Nicola Blackwood: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. I think I understand it, but in his research for the amendment, did he come across any other examples where criminal acts are defined as being specifically prosecuted by the police and no other authority?

Tom Watson: I am going to be very honest with the hon. Lady. It is only 9.25 in the morning; I have not got into the full swing of it and I am a little bit light-headed, so, no, I did not. If she comes up with any examples, please would she let me know?

Lynne Featherstone: It is my pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I trust that all hon. Members want to end the menace of rogue clampers. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, there cannot be an MP in the House who does not have a story of some terrible occurrence. It is best summed up by a comment from Chris Sims, who is chief constable for the West Midlands and a member of ACPO. He said:
“The piece that I suspect collectively causes us concern is the level of intimidation that comes with the presence of a clamp. There may be issues with ticketing, but it will not carry the level of immediate intimidation that has been the really evil part of this.”––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 25, Q67.]
I ask hon. Members to hold in their minds the reason why we are making towing and clamping of vehicles an offence. It is to get rid of the menace of intimidation and extortion. I began with that, because that is the central point and reason for us moving forward on banning clamping and towing, rather than taking up what the previous Government suggested, which was more regulation and more processes, which I doubt would have had the effect that Opposition Members wanted.
Amendment 90, which was tabled by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East, basically sets out the Citizens Advice Bureau briefing. In its briefing, the CAB suggested that the Bill needed to be amended, as the hon. Gentleman said, to make it clear that the police will be responsible for enforcing the ban. Members of the public would then know who to turn to if their vehicle is clamped or towed, because such activities will be an offence and illegal.
As in everything, I hope that the message goes out loud and clear from the Committee and the Government: it is indeed the police to whom members of the public will have to turn and who are responsible for investigating the offence provided for in the clause. As ever, it will fall to the Crown Prosecution Service to take the prosecution forward, and we do not need to state that in the Bill. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will work with the CAB to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to publicise on wheel-clamping and the action that drivers should take if they suspect that their vehicle has been unlawfully clamped or towed away.

Diana Johnson: Given the confusion about parking control and the independent appeals procedure where someone is on the public highway, the general public need to have clearly spelled out who is responsible if they wish to take action. If they have been wheel-clamped, who do they go to? My hon. Friend’s amendment and the CAB briefing are supposed to be helpful and to make it apparent to all parties how the provisions will work. At the moment, there is great confusion. Will the Minister reflect on that?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am reflecting on all the issues raised by all hon. Members during our examination of the Bill. It is important that the provisions are clear, but it cannot be made clearer that it is the police to whom members of the public go. I have now put that clearly on the record.

Mark Tami: But the Minister will accept that priorities will be different. For instance, some police forces and local authorities come down on owners of untaxed vehicles like a ton of bricks, but others do not consider the issue that important. Where does the balance lie?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but there were many menaces and there was much intimidation under the old order of wheel-clamping, and I fear that the police faced many dilemmas when members of the public called them.
It is important to note that Gillian Guy, the chief executive of the CAB, said:
“A straightforward ban should provide those enforcing the law with the robust tool needed to put the illegality of these practices beyond doubt.”
That is the real point. There is great clarity about the banning of towing and clamping, but it could be confused in some cases. It is the police, and only the police, who can enforce the law, as has always been the case.

Diana Johnson: I want to pick the Minister up on that point. Although, on the face of it, it seems that there is a wheel-clamping ban, that is not the case. In the stand part debate, we will discuss where wheel-clamping can lawfully still be done, including by bailiffs. Again, there is confusion, and it would be helpful if the Government could be clear in the Bill exactly what the provisions mean for members of the public.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the hon. Lady. I do not underestimate the public. The response from the public to the announcement of the ban on wheel clamping has been clearly received and clearly understood. As I say, however, we will work with the CAB, which says that inquiries to bureaux across England and Wales about parking and congestion have risen from 8,000-ish in April 2006 to 16,000 in 2010. The hon. Lady is right: confusion exists already, but the provisions will clear it up, not add to it. However, it is important that all agencies and authorities involved work together to ensure that the public thoroughly understand the new provisions.

Tom Watson: May I take the opportunity to praise the Minister’s Bill team for the second time? She has been helpful by saying that, in her mind, the police are responsible. Obviously, that is important for citizens who read the transcript of our proceedings. However, what is the problem with adding those words to the Bill just to make the position clear to anyone who reads it? Is there a constitutional difficulty with that? I am sure that the Minister would like to read the note out to the Committee.

Lynne Featherstone: Such action is inconsistent with legislative practice. Thousands of offences on the statute book do not specify the police, and such an amendment is unprecedented. The public understand that they go to the police and whether prosecution is taken forward is a matter for the CPS, which uses what it always uses: consideration if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and consideration that prosecution would be in the public interest. That is how the law works.

Tom Watson: What a fabulous opportunity the Minister has to set a precedent. She could be known for being the Minister who inserted a reference to police in the Bill, against thousands of other Acts of Parliament. All she has to do is say to her excellent Bill team, “I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich East. Put those three words in the Bill.” Citizens will know that the police are involved. The CAB will be happy. The hon. Lady will be cheered up. The Committee will be doing its job, satisfying itself that it is actually doing proper work rather than just listening to boring briefs that are read out all the time.

Gary Streeter: A rather long intervention.

Lynne Featherstone: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about many matters, but not this one. Now is not the moment to change what has been British law under what have been Acts of Parliament for Lord knows how long. I thank him for trying to be helpful, but I assure him that he has not been that helpful.

Rehman Chishti: As for the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East about inserting “police”, given the paragraph as drafted, it is blatantly clear that such matters would be within the duty of the police. Subsection (5) refers to “on conviction on indictment”. For someone to be on conviction on indictment, the matter has to go through the police in the first place. At summary level, the matter has to go through the police before the CPS. The position is abundantly clear. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can turn to his colleague geographically to his right—although not politically to his right—the hon. Member for Gedling, who, as a former Minister with responsibility for the police, can clarify that point for him. For a matter to reach the stage of indictment or summary conviction, it must go through the police in the first place.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I have a host of lawyerly advice behind me, for which I am grateful—as I am not one of the fraternity.
Amendment 107 deals with fixed barriers. I am happy to clear up any misunderstanding that exists about the absolute express purpose of subsection (3). The wording of the provision does not mean that clamping or towing will remain lawful as long as a barrier is fitted. It means that the landowners or their agents will have lawful authority to use a barrier to restrict the movement of a vehicle, if the barrier were present when the vehicle was parked, and where it was clear or prominent enough for the driver to have been aware of it. That is the clearest way for such matters to be carried out. If the barrier is there, it must be visible in order for a driver to have implied agreement or consent. If drivers enter land where they can see the barrier, they enter at their own risk and they would be silly to do so.
The Opposition are referring to rogue barrier people, not rogue clampers. If the hypothesis is that a piece of land could be bought by a rogue barrier operator and a barrier fitted and raised to attract drivers, and lowered to prevent their egress, and was visible, it is, “driver beware”. That is explicit under the clause. It deals with exemption. It is exactly the issue raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North herself. We are all familiar with commercial car parks that operate fixed barriers, and we would not want to inhibit in any way their purposeful and lawful use of parking law. It is clearly right that parking providers should be free to continue to use barriers to ensure payment, but that does not then permit them to clamp or tow.

Diana Johnson: I am listening carefully to what the Minister says, and it is fine within this Committee debate. However, the problem is that public understanding of this legislation and the meaning of subsection (3) is not as clear as the Minister is trying to present. What is more concerning is that Patrick Troy, who is an expert in this area, is equally confused. The Opposition’s amendment is designed to provide the clarity that currently does not exist.

Lynne Featherstone: I hear what the hon. Lady says. Indeed, I listened to Patrick Troy at the witness session. He is a representative of the BPA and clearly knows a lot about the industry. In this particular circumstance we need to make it clear and we will be working with all organisations to inform the public. However, I think there is a public acceptance that barriers mean charges; we have all been trained by car parks to take our tickets and see a barrier rise and close. If there is a barrier, it is clear that we are implying our consent by driving across, even if the barrier is up and there is no signage around.
We will be working with all the agencies and authorities to ensure that the public do understand the issues around barriers. It is much clearer to say that if there is a barrier then you are consenting to the barrier being there.

Diana Johnson: I understand that and I think it is acceptable that even if a barrier is up when people drive into a car park, they acknowledge that they are going into a private car park and will have to pay a parking fee to leave and the barrier could be put down. The problem is that as the provision is drafted, the BPA and members of the public think that it would also give power to the private landowner not only to put the barrier down but to immobilise the vehicle in some other way, by use of a wheel clamp and by towing away. That is the problem, and the clause should be amended to remove that uncertainty.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the hon. Lady again. No, that is not the case. The exemption for barriers in clause 54(3) does not mean that landowners will still be able to clamp or tow where there is a barrier. The wording of the clause makes it clear that the landowner will have lawful authority to use a barrier to restrict the movement of a vehicle if the barrier was present when the vehicle was parked, where it was clear or prominent enough for the driver to have been aware of it. In other words, a barrier cannot be hidden so as to entrap people.

Mark Tami: In a number of airports where there are barriers one is allowed to go in free for a period of time, and then very high charges suddenly kick in. Hundreds of pounds are charged in some cases. So people do still see certain areas where, even if they go through a barrier, they can perhaps get in and out without being charged.

Lynne Featherstone: I think we are going to have to disagree on this, because I think the wording is clear in these clauses. The bigger job will be to make it clear to the public. The hon. Lady the Member for Kingston upon Hull North talked about people reading clause 54, but I do not think that many members of the public will read the clause. The more important job is to work with all the organisations and authorities who address parking issues to ensure that there is clarity.

Jenny Chapman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is talking about clarity for the public. A few moments ago she said that the public would understand that they would need to be charged if they cross into a car park with a barrier, even if there was no signage. However, a source of public anger is around signage being misused, absent or unclear. Could the Minister correct that remark? Signage is very important; it is the biggest issue for the public on this subject.

Lynne Featherstone: I was not saying that signage is unimportant.

Jenny Chapman: That is what the Minister said.

Lynne Featherstone: I do not think that I put it in that way. I was using the example of rogue clampers becoming rogue barrier users, and therefore entrapping people by not having signage and by leaving the barrier up. That was a specific example to demonstrate that point.

Diana Johnson: Can I be clear? There just needs to be a barrier. There does not need to be any signage at all. Is that what the Minister is saying?

Lynne Featherstone: That would be construed as implied consent.

Diana Johnson: Just the barrier?

Lynne Featherstone: Just the barrier. However, thereafter, in terms of whether there had been a contract because of a lack of signage, I think consumer protection legislation will almost certainly find in the other direction.
I do not know how many more times I can say this: it is not the intention of the legislation to give any room for manoeuvre on the matter. However, I will take it away to check that there are no unintended consequences. That is my best offer under the circumstances. At this point it is not my belief that there will be any such consequences.
Finally, amendment 108 seeks to create an exemption from the ban and would mean that it would still be legal to clamp and tow vehicles that are not registered with the DVLA, including foreign-registered vehicles. I am not convinced by the amendment, as it would create a loophole for rogue clampers to look for unregistered or foreign vehicles to ticket. Foreign drivers are not required to register their vehicles for the first six months that they are in this country. They are no less likely to pay parking tickets than drivers of registered vehicles. There is no requirement for foreign-registered vehicles brought to the UK to be registered if they are in the country for less than six months, so it would be unfair to allow such vehicles be clamped on the basis that they failed to fulfil a condition that is not a legal requirement. It would create a loophole that is arguably discriminatory against foreign vehicles.
I also question the practicality of the amendment. There would be no way to find out in real time whether a vehicle is registered. A ticketing company would not be able to contact the DVLA to find out at that moment.

Diana Johnson: The problem is about enforcement. If a car is parked on private land, and if the ban is in place, so it cannot be wheel-clamped, the only option for the landowner is to use a ticketing regime. If the ticket is paid straight away, that is fine, but if the ticket is not paid, and the landowner wishes to take enforcement action, they will have nowhere to go, because the car is not registered with the DVLA. We will come to the clauses on keeper liability later, which kick in only if the landowner is able to access DVLA information about registered vehicles. In effect, the Government are leaving private landowners with nowhere to go if an unregistered vehicle is on their land. What can they do?

Lynne Featherstone: They can do, in a sense, what they have always done. Instead of a clamp, they can issue a ticket. The hon. Lady is saying that unregistered vehicles will not pay.

Clive Efford: They do not always pay.

Lynne Featherstone: The situation already exists. The only difference that we are making is to ban wheel-clamping and towing. Ticketing on private land is already used by the authorities. At the moment, 74% of tickets are paid. It is not a matter of people not paying—74% of people pay—and we will improve that figure with keeper liability.
If the hon. Lady had wanted to do something about unregistered or foreign vehicles not paying tickets, a situation that already exists, Labour had 13 years in which to do it when it was in government, but it did not do so. We are looking at all those things, but we do not believe that to be the issue. Once we create a loophole where we allow clampers to clamp, they will go around to find people to clamp, and they will say to people, “I am sorry, sir. I thought your vehicle was not registered, or is a foreign vehicle.” They will contravene the law if they do that. That is the point. It is an offence and we do not want to leave loopholes so that clampers can continue to clamp on some spurious excuse or say, “I didn’t know, Guv”.

Diana Johnson: Perhaps the Minister could be clear with the Committee. What option is open to a private landowner who finds an unregistered vehicle parked on their land? What can they do?

Lynne Featherstone: They can call the local authority or the police. It is illegal for a vehicle not to be registered, so that information goes to the DVLA which will then inform the police. Ultimately, the local authority will remove the car if it has been abandoned after sufficient notice.

Diana Johnson: On private land?

Lynne Featherstone: On private land as well as public land. I will go back to the clamping ban because Opposition Members are continually going to say, “What if”.

Clive Efford: That is what happens in the real world.

Lynne Featherstone: That is why I drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that we decided on a ban because it is an absolute. It is much the simplest way to understand that the menace of clamping and towing needs to be stopped. It is intimidation and extortion. The mechanism of ticketing and barriers still exists, which is what the vast majority of the country uses to protect private land. The right of the landowner to protect their land remains intact, so I am not persuaded by any of the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon has just reminded me of another option. When I was on the point of announcing the wheel clamp ban, I had some 500 comments posted on my website. They were mostly from wheel clampers. A couple of them threatened to park on my one little parking space in front of my house and worse, which did not improve my view of the fraternity. However, as my hon. Friend reminded me, when someone parks in the wrong place, the first thing that anyone does is put a note on the car saying, “Please don’t park here again.” When people are concerned about their space in front of their house, they start with a note and then escalate it. In the end, it is a parking offence and most people want to use their car again.
I hope that I have persuaded hon. Members that their amendments are unnecessary and, in the case of amendment 108, undesirable and that they will agree to withdraw them.

Diana Johnson: I have listened carefully to the Minister. In light of the fact that we have a coalition Government and a new style of politics, the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East has tabled is very much in keeping with that new style of politics and allows a precedent to be set. I am disappointed that the Minister is not willing to add those words to the clause.
On amendment 107, the wording of the clause is still a problem for the general public. I am particularly worried that someone such as Patrick Troy is confused by the drafting. I am pleased that the Minister has said that she will go away and consider this again. My position is that I might want to return to the matter on Report, depending on what the Government decide to do. We want clarity in the provisions that we make on the issue because they directly affect so many motorists and landowners. However, at this stage I shall withdraw the amendment.
On amendment 108, I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments. Private landowners will still have problems with unlicensed and unregistered vehicles parked on their land. I understand the Minister’s point about putting a note on a car if it is parked in the wrong place. Clearly, one would like to see the problem of people parking in the wrong place, perhaps in the driveway of a householder, dealt with by a note, with that person, hopefully, not returning. However, in the real world, especially around commuter stations and underground stations and underground stations in London, estates and private housing often have people who—week in, week out—deliberately park in spaces on private land, and leaving a note on the windscreen has not worked. That also does not deal with people who park a car that is not registered in this country, and landowners will be left with absolutely nowhere to go under the provisions in the Bill.

Lynne Featherstone: I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that the Bill will give landowners explicit permission to move a car sufficiently to get it off their land. That will still be legal under the Bill, because they have no intention to stop the owner driving the car away; they will simply be moving it off their land.

Diana Johnson: It is very interesting that the Minister is coming up with all these options for landowners or householders—putting notes on or moving a vehicle—but that might be very difficult. If an old-age pensioner living in a sheltered housing block has a car parked in a space that they need for their car, perhaps because they are disabled, we do not expect legislation to say to that pensioner that they are responsible for pushing that car off their land. We expect the Bill to be very clear, to set out the issues and to offer protection to, obviously, the motorist and the landowner as well.

Lynne Featherstone: There is a progression. Putting a note on a car is for the domestic situation, and there is an escalating range of options. At the other end of that range are ticketing or barriers, which are the ways in which landowners can choose to protect their land and which are not necessarily hugely expensive.
 Clive Efford  rose—

Gary Streeter: Diana Johnson has the Floor.

Diana Johnson: To return to amendment 108, which is specifically about what will happen to unregistered vehicles, I will not press it to a vote, but I again want the Government to consider the matter. It is a genuine problem, which the Minister identified on her website last year, and I am still not clear what options are open to landowners dealing with the issue of unregistered vehicles and ticket enforcement. I hear what the Minister says about barriers and tickets being available, but how do landowners deal with the problem of what happens if they cannot enforce the ticket? I am still not convinced.

Michael Ellis: Hearing the discourse from the Opposition this morning, one would think that there was nowhere and that there were no circumstances anywhere in the country where clamping is not allowed. There are places where clamping, especially by private companies, does not take place. That does not cause those areas to seize up or give them irremediable problems. It clearly works not to have the facility for private clamping in many if not most parts of the country, and Scotland has not had a problem. Do not the Opposition accept that the issue is not insurmountable if private wheel-clamping goes?

Diana Johnson: That is not the argument that I have attempted to make this morning. We will move on to the stand part debate soon, I hope, when we can deal with the wider issue of wheel-clamping. On the amendments, it is appropriate for the Opposition to press the Government about the drafting of the clauses they are introducing to ensure that the clauses do what we all want, which is to offer protection to motorists and landowners and to have clarity about what the law means on a day-to-day basis—for example, for the old-age pensioner living in a sheltered block in whose disabled parking bay someone else is constantly parking. What do they do, and what options are available to them? That is the purpose of the amendments. I might bring the issue back on Report, but on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tom Watson: I have listened to the case made by the Minister in responding to my probing amendment, and she has convinced me that I should put it to a vote.

Amendment proposed: 90, in clause54, page37, line30, after ‘liable’, insert
‘to prosecution by the police and’.—(Mr Watson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Diana Johnson: The clause sets out the ban on wheel-clamping. We have just had a fairly lengthy discussion about various subsections. While the wheel-clamping ban sounds attractive and popular—the Minister announced the coalition Government’s plan to introduce it in early August—it came out of the blue. As the Minister will recollect, the previous Government introduced provisions to regulate wheel-clamping in the Crime and Security Act 2010, which dealt with many of the issues that arose from the behaviour of rogue clampers. Those provisions were in place to deal with things like signage and appeal mechanisms and proper telephone numbers for people to contact if they have been clamped.
So the previous Government recognised the problems with rogue clampers and a large consultation took place in 2009 on what to do about those problems. Out of that consultation came the decision to introduce tighter regulation and the various provisions that then flowed into the Crime and Security Act. That had the support of the majority of stakeholders within the parking sector. There were those who wanted a complete ban but organisations like the BPA felt that there was enough in that Act to offer motorists protection. However, none of the provisions in the Act relating to wheel-clamping protection has been enacted.
People in England are still being subjected to those rogue clampers. It is disappointing that the Government did not, perhaps as an interim measure, introduce the provisions in the Crime and Security Act to offer some protection now. As I understand it, it will take quite a long time to bring in the ban—it will be 2012 or 2013 at the earliest. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. It worries me that people are still without the protection that is set out in law at the moment, which could be introduced even if only on an interim basis.
The RAC said in its evidence that the wheel-clamping ban as set out in clause 54
“will not create a landscape for parking in which the motorist can be guaranteed a fair deal from the parking industry.”
I also note that in his evidence Edmund King said,
“we fully support the outlawing of clamping. That happened in Scotland in 1992.”
The hon. Member for Northampton North referred to that in his earlier intervention. Edmund King continued:
“There is a concern that some of those clampers”—
the rogue clampers about whom we are all concerned—
“will then go into private ticketing, and the worry there is that the same kind of intimidation tactics we have seen used by many of the rogue clampers could be tried again—whether or not it is a private car park—when four burly chaps come over and suggest that you pay £500.”––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 145, Q419.]
I have listened to what the Minister said about people being intimidated by having a wheel clamp applied to their car, and, as someone who has had their car wheel-clamped, I fully appreciate that, but I recall from my experience of being wheel-clamped that the behaviour of the wheel clamper was quite intimidating in itself. The wheel clamper was not a pleasant person to deal with. Although he did not march me to a cashpoint to take money out, his manner and his refusal properly to engage with me were worrying. We all recognise that even with ticketing there could still be a level of intimidation in the way in which the car ticketers behave.
I want the Minister to make it clear to the Committee and the general public that the clause will not deliver a total ban on wheel-clamping in England. The provisions will only prevent wheel-clamping on private land; the police and local authorities will still have the power to clamp on the public highway and on land managed by local authorities. The DVLA may clamp, and certain byelaws permit landowners to continue to clamp and remove.
There is also an issue with bailiffs. Again, that is an area in which there is some confusion. The written submissions from some of the bailiff companies show that they are concerned about what the Bill will do. As I understand it—again I seek clarification from the Minister—certified bailiffs will have the power to immobilise or remove vehicles for unpaid council tax or other unpaid national taxes. Paragraph 56 of the Home Office Public Reading stage report states that bailiffs will continue to be able to clamp, but the written evidence provided by John Kruse, the editor of Bailiff Studies Bulletin¸ disputes that. He said that what the Home Office says about the continuing powers of bailiffs to clamp is not correct.
The submission from Claire Sandbrook, an authorised High Court enforcement officer and the chief executive officer of Shergroup, also agrees that there is confusion about how the Bill’s provisions will affect the power of bailiffs. It would be helpful if the Minister would look at that and comment on what the correct understanding should be. It would also be helpful if the Minister would detail her understanding of when a vehicle may be clamped and by whom.
The Home Office has produced an impact assessment on this issue, but there are some concerns about that impact assessment. First, it does not address the costs to the police of enforcing the ban. Has any thought been given to how that could be looked at and collated? What methodology was used to determine that? If a wheel clamper criminally wheel-clamps a vehicle, does the Minister expect the police to take that forward? I understand what she has said about its being the decision of the CPS to prosecute, but will it be on that one basis, or does she expect the police to be looking for a pattern of a wheel-clamping company operating when it should not? What is the likelihood of prosecutions? Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside said about the cuts to the police and the CPS and about the reduced budgets that are available, what priority will it be given?
There is also the question whether a fine will be enough of a deterrent to those people who wish to engage in such wheel-clamping after it becomes a criminal offence. Has the Minister thought whether a term of imprisonment ought to be one of the options available to the courts for those people who engage in criminal wheel-clamping?
What would happen to persistent evaders? I am discussing motorists that will simply continue to park on private land and will not engage with or accept the issue of the parking ticket. What other options are open to a landowner to change that behaviour? The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations, in its submission to the Committee, discussed some of the problems that exist for landowners. We have just discussed the use of barriers under amendment 107, and the federation states that it is not always possible to erect barriers. That option is not always available to small estates or small properties. The federation says that barriers may
“be fine for businesses, government departments and the landed gentry, but it is not feasible for most ordinary blocks of flats”.
It continues:
“Residents and leaseholders of blocks of flats may not be able to install barriers due to restrictions in the lease, or the physical layout of the grounds. Leases restrict what leaseholders and freeholders can do, and few will have a provision allowing them to build new barriers”.
There is also the issue of the cost, which will fall on ordinary leaseholders, of installing and maintaining barriers. Those leaseholders often include pensioners and those that are not well off. The federation asked why ordinary residents should have to bear the costs of dealing with persistent rogue parkers. The federation’s submission states:
“Barriers are inconvenient and restrictive to residents’ free movement in and out of their estate, and are inconvenient for visitors, trade vehicles and emergency services”.
It is disappointing that, again, because there was no opportunity to have a full consultation about this whole area of legislation before it came before the House, those practical issues have not been thought through or addressed within the provisions of the clause. The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations also wanted to raise the issue of gates posing the danger of children getting trapped and injured, which is a responsibility that resident management groups may have to deal with.
Judith Bailey also provided written evidence to the Committee. She lives in a block of flats in which the
“freehold of…29 privately-owned flats is owned by some of the leaseholders in the form of a Management Company.”
However, there are only 28 parking places. She raises concerns about what happens with persistent rogue parkers who will not be put off by receiving a note on their windscreen. She is also concerned about the potential cost and inconvenience to the freeholders and leaseholders within the block and, again, the lack of access for visitors, utilities, delivery vans and emergency services if they did erect a barrier.
I want to refer to the evidence that was put forward by the Blackheath Cator estate, which is in SE3. It is quite a large estate, and it seems that three parliamentary constituencies cover the estate, which are those of my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who are all sympathetic to the concerns that were raised in the evidence of Rev. Dr Adam Scott OBE. He makes a compelling case for the problems of an estate that is 200 metres from Blackheath railway station and has to deal with persistent parking from people wanting to use the station.
Helpfully, in its evidence, the estate committee seems to have thought through the matter and set out several issues that it thinks ought to be addressed. It discusses the concerns about rogue clampers and says that in its view, the idea that all clamping on private land should be banned is wrong, because it is rogue clampers who need to be dealt with, not the issue of clamping itself.
On the point that a similar ban has worked in Scotland, the committee says:
“I am not aware of there being, in Scotland’s larger cities, private estates, like the Cator Estate, with the mixture of residential, educational, care, sports, halls, church and retail premises. Scotland’s entire population is smaller than London’s and it does not have a metropolitan area like London’s where a large estate like ours—so convenient to a good commuter railway station—could become a park and ride for those wishing to park during a day.”
The provisions tell private landowners that they can use ticketing or barriers. The estate committee says that
“that works well in a well confined area like a supermarket car park but not on a large estate with thousands of residents and many legitimate visitors expecting to drive to and fro. We gather that ticketing would also be very difficult for a private amenity company to enforce legally.”
The Bill gives local authorities a responsibility to remove abandoned cars. The estate says in its evidence:
“We accept this, but the problem is not so much the relatively rare abandonment of a car as regular parking by commuters or others who would be able to avoid parking in places where the relevant Council can render (and enforce) a charge.”
The Bill gives the police the powers and responsibility to remove cars creating a danger or obstruction. The estate committee agrees with that, but says that
“parking in a bay set apart for motorists with disabilities, for residents of a particular set of homes or the space that has been marked up for hearses used for funeral coffins and for brides’ cars would not constitute obstruction.”
What options will be available for dealing with those problems? The evidence usefully discusses the issues that affect the estate day to day.
Will the Minister comment on the example of a driver who parks for two weeks in a private car park, perhaps near a block of flats or sheltered housing, and then goes on holiday? What remedy is open to the flat owner or old-age pensioner deprived of their space for two weeks?
The Committee must also consider disabled drivers. I was concerned to see that the equality assessment column of the impact assessment did not seem to have much in it. There are equality issues for disabled drivers that need to be addressed. Disabled drivers are much more likely to be adversely affected by the provisions in the Bill. Disabled drivers have fought hard over many years for disabled car parking spaces to be marked, available and protected. How will they be protected now? If a car is parked every day in a space designated for a disabled person, what protection will be available so that the disabled person can use the space? It is all very well to ticket, but that does not provide a practical solution for the person who needs to use that disabled parking space there and then. What can be done?

Michael Ellis: Briefly, is it not the case that if a private wheel-clamper came and clamped that vehicle, the legitimate user would not be able to use the space either, as an immobilised vehicle belonging to somebody else would be there?

Diana Johnson: What normally happens is that a wheel-clamped car is then removed, so the space becomes available to the person who needs it. I am not standing here defending wheel-clampers. I think we all know that we must deal with rogue wheel-clampers. I understand that the Government have now taken the view that they wish to ban the practice. I am trying to establish the Minister’s view on particular issues such as disability, as there are genuine concerns about whether a ticketing regime will offer any protection to disabled people. How will it work, day by day?
I am concerned that the Home Office impact assessment seems not to have identified this as a potential problem, yet the written evidence that we received from various pressure groups, charities and organisations shows that people are very aware of the problem. I therefore ask the Minister to satisfy herself that the equality angle is covered. As well as her specific Home Office responsibilities she has ministerial responsibility for equality, and she has a long history of championing equality generally. I know that this will be something close to her heart, and that she will want to consider the matter.
The Home Office impact assessment makes much of the costs and benefits to the parking industry but, as I said, it does not cover the cost of police enforcement or the cost to the landowners. As I mentioned earlier, another problem is the cost to small residential groups and small businesses of illegal parking in spaces outside their properties.
Subsection (5) deals with punishments and fines for illegal clamping. I ask the Minister to consider what the BPA says on whether it would be sensible to have the option of imprisonment, especially for those companies that persistently engage in wheel-clamping after the Bill is enacted.
Subsection (6) defines “motor vehicle”, but the submission from the Association of Residential Managing Agents mentioned caravans and trailers, which are not registered with the DVLA, and raised the question of how to take enforcement action. The Minister may say, “Well, you can put a ticket on the caravan,” but the keeper cannot be pursued, which is the intention in later clauses. How can we deal with caravans and trailers that are parked on private land? Many Members will have seen caravans that seem to have been abandoned in car parks or on private land. What is the private landowner to do?
I should be grateful for the Minister’s response to each of those points.

Tom Brake: I am grateful to you, Mr Streeter, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate on wheel-clamping. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said that the wheel-clamping ban sounds popular. She could have been more positive than that, saying that it is popular—with the public if not with the wheel clampers.

Diana Johnson: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to read remarks made on the Public Reading of the Bill, as the comments were certainly mixed.

Tom Brake: I shall give the hon. Lady an example from a quarter that was previously opposed to the wheel-clamping ban, which I hope she will believe supports the Government’s proposal.
The hon. Lady may have lost sight of why the ban is needed. It was the outrageous activities of rogue clampers that led to public demand for the ban. I suspect that Members on both sides of the Committee will have had a long list of such cases passed on to them. In Croydon—a neighbouring constituency to mine—one private car park is notorious for clamping cars, with people having to pay large sums to recover their vehicles. The Labour party has suggested that regulation is the solution. It is not necessarily the solution for a vulnerable person who, under a regulated system, is perfectly legally clamped but is vulnerable as a result because they are unable to access their vehicle at a time of day or night that puts them at risk. Regulation does not necessarily address the issue, particularly in relation to vulnerable people.
A case has been raised with me, which is perhaps the other side of the concerns of the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations, involving a constituent who lived in a block of flats where wheel-clamping or towing was in place. Her vehicle was parked there, and by mistake she did not display her resident’s parking badge in the appropriate place on her windscreen. Her vehicle was towed away to a camp in Dorking, which she had to visit with her baby to try and extract her vehicle—she was told that it was in a pound, although it was in fact parked in the street—from the clutches of some rather large gentlemen with large dogs. That is why the wheel-clamping ban is required.

Clive Efford: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can explain how this clause would prevent that from happening in the future, since the owners of the land still have the right to remove the vehicle.

Tom Brake: As I understand it, the owners of the land have the right to move the vehicle, as the Minister has stated, but not to prevent the owner of the vehicle from using it, so the clause addresses that scenario. That example is merely one of many that I am sure other hon. Members could refer to of cases where wheel-clamping on private land has had a toxic impact on motorists. That is why I fully support the Minister’s proposal, and why I believe that clause 54 should not be amended.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North has already mentioned the Cator estate in Blackheath, which is partly in my constituency and partly in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. Rev. Dr Adam Scott has made a submission to the Committee —for those who want to look at it, it is PF 41—on behalf of the estate, which demonstrates why the clause is seriously flawed. It does not meet the needs of the estate’s residents. A private contractor currently carries out wheel-clamping on the estate’s behalf. Although it is a private estate, it is still an integral part of the local community and, as Rev. Dr Adam Scott points out in his evidence, it is essential that people have access to it. Various organisations exist on the estate, such as a church, which has a playgroup or crèche, and various other organisations use that facility. People come through the estate during the day, although access is restricted during peak rush hours to avoid commuter traffic. The estate demonstrates the serious flaws in the clause and the reasons why the Government should go back and think again. Barriers would not be practical on the roads—

Michael Ellis: Would the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there are also large estates near mainline termini in Scotland, which do not cease to operate without the ability to clamp?

John Robertson: Name one.

Michael Ellis: I am not as familiar with the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow as some Members might be, but I assume that there are estates near railway stations in Scotland, and I assume that they also have difficulties with illegal parking. The absence of clamping has not caused them to seize up.

Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to make a poor comparison. For people who live on the commuter lines coming into and out of London such parking is a serious problem. On the railway lines that pass through my constituency the local authority has had to go to great expense to introduce controlled parking zones around all those stations, because of the problems that are caused to local communities by commuters who seek to railhead—to park their cars around those railway stations—

Gary Streeter: Order. Fascinating though this is, the Committee is now adjourned until 1 o’clock.

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.